Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carl Lockhart v. David Ballard, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Carl E. Lockhart's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court denied the petition as untimely. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lockhart did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-12-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7567

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Carl E. Lockhart's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court denied the petition as untimely. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lockhart did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views3 pages

    Carl Lockhart v. David Ballard, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Carl E. Lockhart's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court denied the petition as untimely. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lockhart did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7567

    CARL E. LOCKHART,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. John T. Copenhaver,
    Jr., District Judge. (6:12-cv-04266)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 2013

    Decided:

    December 20, 2013

    Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Carl E. Lockhart, Appellant Pro Se.


    Christopher S. Dodrill,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Carl E. Lockhart seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a

    certificate

    (2006).

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(A)

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    When the district court denies

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


    When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
    prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
    ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Lockhart has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    2

    presented in the materials before this court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like